Hey, good evening planning policy
commission staff.
Where else would you rather be today on
the 70°ree day than the stuffy chamber?
So, thank you everybody for coming.
We're going to begin this evening by
calling it to order. It's currently 6:31
p.m. I don't believe we have anyone
joining us uh via online, but it is a
hybrid meeting and we may have staff or
somebody try to join a little later.
Staff, do we have a quorum this evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Okay. And I believe we have one excused
absent.
>> Yes, Commissioner Zacharov is excused.
>> Perfect. Thank you, Kristen. We're going
to move on to approving last meeting's
minutes uh for the March 26th. Any
corrections? Anything worthy of note
from our commissioners? Everything looks
good. Okay, those meeting minutes are
approved.
We set a aside this time for public
comment. There is clearly nobody in the
room, but Amanda, do we have anybody
who's joining us online?
>> No, Commissioner.
>> Okay, thanks Amanda.
We're going to begin by moving on to our
first agenda this evening, which is part
of our regular business, Title 18
clarifying amendments. Review all of the
proposals.
We are going to pick up on our continued
discussion of these code amendments.
Kate Kaney, our principal planner, will
be presenting tonight. So, Kate, when
you are ready, please go ahead.
Okay, I
think I am sharing my screen. I'm not
sure if you see it yet.
There we go. That's a bit better. Great.
Um, yes. Thank you. Uh again, my name is
Kate Kaney and um I am here to present
on all of the proposals that you have
reviewed um one time over the last
couple of months. And while I am here
presenting uh some of the staff who did
the technical writing is available to an
to answer any questions uh that you have
uh if they are not available online then
we will try to do our best to answer
those questions for you.
Let's
see. Not sure why my slides are not
advancing, but
it's weird. Hold on.
There we go. Sorry about that. Okay.
So, again, um we are here to provide you
with um a second review of all of the uh
items uh that were proposed as part of
these title 18 land use uh housekeeping
or clarifying codes. And as usual, we
provide this uh slide saying, you know,
what what might you want to think about?
You know, what does the existing code
say? Why are we proposing the amendment?
Are things clear? Do you think things
could be clear? That those are the type
of things we'd love to hear from you
tonight. Um this slide also you've seen
it is our status update in terms of uh
where we have gone with this project. So
you started in February uh looking at
some of the changes to the sign code. um
moved into more of the procedural uh
reviews, um uh site development plans,
uh permits, um and some temporary uses.
Um also looked at changes to daycare
standards and some definitions and other
clarifying type code amendments. And we
have landed here um in this last review
before the public hearing. So, I will go
ahead and go through all of the proposed
amendments. And we have also added some
slides where uh we collected some of the
input that you provided over the last
couple of months. Staff has done a
little research and we want to provide
our follow-up recommendations today and
once once again get your feedback on
where we're going. So, um the first
proposal is one of the more procedural
code amendments having to do with site
development permits, SDPs. As you may
recall, those are land use permits and
uh they allow the city and the staff to
look at a proposal and make sure it is
consistent with what is in title 18 land
use code. Um SDP permits um are required
for multif family and commercial
projects. They are that kind of review
is not required for uh the single family
or middle housing um type of
development. So what were uh we
proposing to change? Well, um there are
some clarifications in the code that uh
we believe were going to help uh
applicants get through the system uh and
uh reviewers to be able to more
accurately review projects. So um the uh
what is proposed was uh these these
three things where you see those check
marks. So um right now uh if you come in
for a review for your multif family or
commercial project and maybe you are
just you're not proposing any changes to
a building nothing to a structure but
just to your site you still have to go
through the full review process um this
would eliminate the need uh in the case
that you just have site improvements uh
that can be handled other under a
different type of process we believe um
there was also the issue of when you do
have a change to a building but It's
very small. Um we were proposing that uh
100 square ft of building change be
allowed to go through without an SDP
being triggered. Um that was an item of
discussion that we'll provide some
follow-up on. Um also a change to some
of the calculations right now uh square
footage and another method of
calculating whether you go through
review uh is in the code. We want to
clean that up. So, you know, the main
reason is just to make everything go
more smoothly, especially for for small
uh projects. That's why we're uh making
these proposals. So, in terms of the
input that we heard from commissioners,
um again, that idea of okay, if a
building is coming through, maybe
they're bumping out the front of their
building to, you know, improve the
entrance. uh we were saying well maybe a
100 square feet if you do that kind of
small level uh building change you don't
need to go through the full intensive
SDP you know level one review um as we
were talking we were wonder that the
commissioners were suggesting going a
little bit higher we went back took a
look at that and are proposing to
increase that 100 uh square foot uh
threshold to 200 square feet 200 square
feet currently is the threshold for when
you need a building permit for a
detached structure so we thought that
would work better So that was one of the
items. Um there was also uh some input
from commissioners about um you know
we're trying to make things uh easier
for people with smallcale changes, but
are people going to try to gain the
system? Should we have a cumulative
square footage over several years to
make sure that no one's going to try to
slide through a project uh without going
through SD SDP review when that would be
appropriate? Um our current planners
took a deep look at this one just to say
should we do that? Should we not? And at
this time they are recommending not
adding any requirements. Um thinking uh
maybe there are some unintended
consequences. Maybe you know this lack
of precedent. We're not sure what would
happen. Um so at this point we'd like to
kind of just test it out and if it's a
problem we will come back to you. So um
at this point I would ask the
commissioners if they had any additional
feedback um on what we're proposing.
>> No. I see our fingerprints all over
that. So that's wonderful. Uh yeah,
Commissioner,
>> if you do ever return to the cumulative
uh requirement, uh I wonder whether
there should be a time limit because
obviously if if someone is adding a
little bit over 10 years, that's very
different than coming back in for a a a
building permit or an STP review every 3
months.
>> Yeah,
but it's a point well taken because
again, I mean, how many people were
going to go through that process? It's
much more expensive. It's much more
painful, less efficient to try to game
the system to be remodeling their place
every year. So, it's it's really not
practical. So,
>> makes sense.
>> Great. Um, so moving ahead, this is
another part of those uh procedural uh
code changes that we were bringing to
you. Um this one had to do with the
subdivision process uh platting and
construction permit sequencing and uh
what we were proposing to change um were
were some clarifications. Um one issue
in the code is that it's not crystal
clear that um if you are doing a
subdivision the infrastructure for your
site must be constructed um before you
get uh your final approval of the plat.
Um you can also if it's smaller uh level
changes uh purchase a bond to cover the
cost of construction. But the whole
issue is kind of the timing. You've got
to get your infrastructure done and then
we will um uh approve the final plat.
Currently as I was saying the code lacks
clarity regarding this requirement um
and it can make the process a little
sticky uh for everybody. So another
change was to add language to prevent
building permits uh being issued for
non-existent lots. So, what does this
mean? You subdivide your plot, um your
plat, you do um uh the work you need to
do, but you're in a hurry to get your
building permit. Um but you haven't
recorded with King County um your new
parcels. So, there's no parcel number.
We can't attach uh a building permit to
it. So, we just wanted to clarify that
um that sequencing of steps needs to
happen where um you do your recording
before you are issued a building permit.
doesn't mean you can't get started, but
we're not going to issue the building
permit till you're done with that. Okay.
So, there were no questions at the time
I did uh put together this presentation.
Um but are there any questions before we
move forward on that one? Okay, great.
All right. So, um the next proposal has
to do with changes to the temporary use
requirements um to add specific language
regarding donation bins. Um the issue
here was that we were getting requests
um from different businesses about
putting donation bins on their sites and
they didn't know clearly what permit
process to go through. Um the temporary
use process is available for that but we
wanted to add clarifying language. So,
this uh proposal clarifies where and how
to allow those bins on private property
and it includes um where you can put the
donation bins um how long they can be on
a site and uh includes some maintenance
language so that trash doesn't gather
and that sort of thing. So, uh we did
get some input about these standards
that were proposed including this idea
of how long should these bins be on a
site. So, we went back and we looked at
other uh uh uses that were allowed
temporarily. Um looked at permitting
processes and uh the commission had
thought, well, uh we're proposing a
year, which is what we use for food
trucks, uh perhaps some other uses. And
the idea was, well, maybe that's too
long. Maybe they should come back after
180 days. We went back and took a look
at that and were thinking well maybe we
will try we we would prefer to try the
365 days. Uh when there have been issues
uh the code enforcement official has
successfully been able to work with um
operators to make sure the sites are
clean and we were thinking maybe we'll
test it out and if there were any
problems we would come back to the
commission and uh talk about changing
that time duration. So that was the
thought process there. Um, additionally,
uh, the commission had recommended
adding some standards having to do with
where you locate a bin on site so it
doesn't interfere with the work, uh, or
with the processes of people coming in
and going and, uh, parking and all of
that. So, we did add some language, um,
to make it clear that the uh, building
entrances should not be impeded in terms
of access and other things. So, uh,
those were the changes that uh, we are
recommending. Any questions?
>> Any questions, comments? I saw the
guidelines. The guidelines look great.
Um, I believe not to put you on blast. I
think Vice Chair Patterson was more of a
proponent for the 365, but it makes
sense, right? I know we talked
originally about 180. Anybody any
concerns about 365?
>> Yeah, please.
>> Uh, thank you, chair. um with the I
looked at the guidelines and the one
thing that wasn't quite clear is if it
becomes a nuisance, what's the process
look like to report it. Um I don't
necessarily think that needs to go in
the code, but just for my knowledge,
like what what does that look like? Is
it
>> right? Um well, there will be
information about who you can contact
directly, who operates, you know, the
bin actually and also the code
enforcement officer gets in touch with
the property owner and um there's a
warning process and other steps. So at
this point um there are some donation
bins around that um you know seem to be
working in terms of when there's an
issue. So that's what we have in terms
of those communications right now.
>> Okay. Awesome. And then one other
question was like what constitutes
removal? Is it like a three strikes
you're out kind of situation or
>> Well, and I'm going to phone a friend
here and ask for a little help about uh
the uh code enforcement process uh in
Isqua. I'm not uh up to date on that.
if a if a donation bin needed to be
removed and a a code enforcement uh
process would be a warning or do you
know the steps to share?
>> Thank you.
>> Um hello everybody. Um so yeah it's not
an automatic thing. We send out a not
courtesy notice sometimes first uh if it
if the violation is too severe then we
can jump right to notice of violation
but we try to work with people to bring
them into compliance. That's generally
our our way and approach. We're after
compliance, not to penalize people in,
you know, in that sense. But if we get
into a situation where people are not
complying, then we we have abilities to
issue fines um you know, lean properties
and things like that depending on the
severity of the the violation. But for
something like this, we would start off
with a first contact by phone followed
up by a courtesy notice. Then we give
them a timeline. And if that doesn't
work, then we officially issue a notice
of violation.
>> Okay, cool. Thank you. Um, yeah, I think
when we were kind of talking about the
180 days, the idea was probably on that
worst case scenario, you know, idea. Um,
so I think I it totally makes sense. I
don't anticipate this being like a very
high volume thing. You know, it sounds
like we have steps in place to alleviate
it. So, um, I appreciate you taking all
the feedback into consideration.
>> Great. Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson.
One question to follow up on on Jesse's
excellent point. Is there
>> is are we thinking of any tape and you
can let me know what the planners think,
but would we want anything on the bin
that says if this bin is in distress,
please call or you know, report this bin
if it's, you know, kind of like you see
on the back of people's vehicles. If
this car is speeding type thing, you
know, please call my boss. Yeah. How's
my bin doing? Yeah. And I am sorry I
don't have the code right in front of
me, but that was the intent that we
would require that the owner of the bin
um have a clear um uh mode of
communication, whether it be a phone
number or an email available. Um we
think we we did talk about that. That is
a great idea. I will go back and double
check.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh
yes, with that red box, it's call here.
Um, if you see the uh picture with the
garbage and then there's a little red
box, that's that would be that kind of
notice.
>> Okay. Yeah, maybe that could come back
before the public hearing. Something
like that.
>> Yes. Thank you.
>> Um, anything additional on this topic?
All right.
>> Okay. Great. Okay. Um, this next
definition was cleanup of the code. Uh,
currently, uh, there are two definitions
of multifamily. Um, this can happen when
you do big code amendments. When we did
the middle housing code amendments just
a little while ago, uh the definition of
multifamily was changed so it would work
better with the middle housing
definitions and we um inadvertently left
in the old definition. So this is just
cleaning up the old and having the
correct definition stand.
Uh the next uh couple of uh proposals
have to do uh with clean up to the
daycare code and some clarifications. So
uh what these uh proposals are uh in the
first case is um just adding a reference
and some way finding to the code to uh
help people understand what the
definition of uh daycare vers center
versus daycare center family is. Um
certain numbers of um kids are allowed
in each and that that gives you an idea
of what type of code you need to look
at. So um also some clarification around
the adult family home uh code. So really
there's just a new paragraph with, you
know, references to go go look at the
definitions here if you're trying to
figure out what these are. Um there's
also uh just a minor update to um some
language. We used to say uh family child
care center and now we say family
daycare center. So just for consistency
um we made a change to that. Just going
to go to the next slide. also about
daycare center standards. Um in this
case, um council in March adopted an
ordinance that established traffic
impact fee waiverss applicable to
daycare centers. We wanted to codify
that so the centers could use it as soon
as possible. And basically the change
was to um again provide some way finding
back to go to the traffic impact code as
well as information about uh a covenant
being needed uh to record uh what was
allowed on that site. So I think there
might be one more having to do with
daycare. I'll just get through that and
get your comments if you have any. Um
this was again just cleanup. Um the
daycare uh operations code used to be
part of home business uh section of the
code. We removed it but didn't
completely scrub uh sentence here out of
home occupation or home uh sorry
home business standards. Um so we wanted
to just take care of that uh clean it up
so people can just be in the daycare
section of the code and not worry about
getting a license from a hawk. So those
were the um set of daycare standard
related changes. Any comments on those?
Any comments?
>> Well done with the with the picture of
the kids. Hard to say no to kids. Those
cute kids.
>> Say Kristen did is she's the graphics
expert. She uh she remembers to do those
things. So
>> the hearts helpful with just code code.
Uh now we're going to move to the last
section and that's on signs. So you may
recall uh these great pictures of
balloon signs. I didn't even know these
existed. It's kind of hard plastic
rather than just real balloons. Um, and
this was an amendment that our staff
worked with um the code enforcement
officer on. Um, currently the code does
prohibit balloons um because there's a
concern about obscuring the vision of uh
drivers and uh that kind of safety
issue. Um so to clarify the code uh some
additional language saying not only
balloons, balloon like objects and
certain you know a variety of materials
were also included in that uh language
for what was prohibited.
Um
we did get some input that you may
recall uh a request you know really
confirm do we really need this if it's
already in the prohibitions. Um, so our
staff did uh go back to the code
enforcement officer and she said, "Yes,
this expansion of what the materials are
is very helpful." Um, so we can be
crystal clear when we have to contact a
business to say this is in our code and
we we need your help in keeping things
safe. So that's uh that's what we are
recommending. Any questions on this one?
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> I did have a question about the code. So
it's 18612030.
It actually says that balloons that are
smaller than 18 in are exempt from the
permitting requirement. So, is that kind
of contradictory? Is that going to be
removed?
Um, that is a great catch. I uh will
take that back to the planner and uh
we'll get some input on that. Um I don't
know if Kristen knows more about that.
Um as she comes out, we can ask her. So,
um, while you stepped out, uh, had a
great question from Commissioner
Matthews about, um, this proposal in the
balloon, um, uh, prohibition to expand.
Uh, and apparently it says, can you read
that again?
>> Um, it says balloons less than 18 in in
diameter with messages are exempt from
sign standards under 030.
Yeah.
>> With message. I didn't I didn't know if
you might know a little more about that
or if we should just go back to
>> great soothing do the code.
>> I was looking at something else and I'm
like hey
>> nice.
>> Hi.
>> Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Uh yes.
>> Oh
>> Andrew.
>> Hi. This is Andrew.
>> Yes. Hi. Hi. Um so if you remember I was
a planner on the sign regulation. So um
good catch. I just want to echo what
Kate said. So we def definitely don't
want to have too many inconsistencies on
the prohibited it prohibited sorry signs
um section. So I can certainly um take
that back and modify that. I think what
that section was getting at is allowing
some, you know, for example, like
residential areas or temporary um uses
to have like a, you know, birthday
balloons. Uh, for example, identifying
the location of um something like that
could have been the intent of that
section. So, not to uh basically not
prohibit balloons that are in smaller in
size. But I think that you have a good
point that it is a bit conflicting and
it would probably be better to um omit
that part of the code as well.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks.
>> So we will go ahead and uh come back um
on I believe May 14th when the public
hearing is going to be uh and provide
our recommendation in the packet uh so
you can see it ahead of time uh and talk
about it then.
All right,
>> the next one. Okay,
>> please.
>> All right, so uh this next uh amendment
had to do with the interior illumination
of monument signs. You can see some
examples of what monument signs look
like um at you know sites and driveways
uh where the roadway uh meets the
driveway. Um and the issue here was that
um in the code uh it is not clear that
the currently grandfathered or uh signs
that are out of uh conformance with the
existing code but are grandfathered in
to allow them to continue to uh stand
up. Um that there there are multiple
cases of these in central Isiqua, Isqua
Highlands, Talis and in the CBD zone. Um
and the idea was to um allow these to
move forward maintaining their interior
illumination and making that clear in
the code um because that is something
that is currently not clear. So, um did
get some input from the commission about
this and changes uh were refined I
believe uh to be more explicit to show
that for these grandfathered signs. If
you were changing just the sign face um
then it is okay to keep moving forward
with your illumination. But if you are
changing the entire sign structure then
you would have to replace it and conform
with the the current code. So that um is
what was uh refined in this set of
proposals. Um
yeah, so don't know if you have any
comments on that.
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> I worked on signs for a long time. So
I'm looking at this as coming from like
a sign installer. So some of the
language that's actually in the where
you're showing the revision of the code,
it's not consistent. So in one case
under illumination it says except that
sign face replacements are allowed but
down below under um the monument signs
business and it's it basically says the
sign structure or face replaced is okay
for a grandfathered sign. So that is not
a consistent definition and they should
line up.
>> That is a great find and
>> we will definitely go back and thank you
for holding us to account. We'll scrub
that and we will come back. Yes. Thank
you.
Okay.
All right. So, temporary window signs.
Um the idea here was to make it easier
for businesses to install these uh
construction signs while they are
getting their businesses ready. Um this
is not um exempt right now in the code
and we just wanted to make it easier for
new businesses coming in. So, the
feedback we got from the commission at
the time was that yeah, that sounds like
a good idea. We just want them to look
good. We want them to be wellmaintained.
So, uh, staff added this sentence, uh,
signs must be of professional quality
and maintained during the duration of
their display, uh, to help us in case
they weren't looking good. And then
again, you know, code enforcement will
go out. But that was the change. Any
comments on that one?
>> Doesn't look like it.
>> Okay,
great. So, that was the last um of the
amendments. uh we will collect the
comments on the sign code uh and the
other comments that you made uh and go
back and again when we would send you
the uh memo and information for the
public hearing we'll make sure to
highlight these areas uh and so you can
go directly to uh any changes uh since
today's review um in terms of next steps
um we are headed into that public
hearing again I believe it's May 14th
and uh at that time we will be asking
for recommendation from the commission
in advance of going through council. So
that's the uh planning, development and
environment committee and uh then the
full council meeting uh is uh
anticipated to June 29th. Uh so um I
believe that was the last slide and we
just wanted to see if you had any final
comments.
>> Any final comments?
>> Nope. That was great. Thank you, Kate.
Appreciate it.
And thank you, Andrew, for popping in.
Okay,
we're going to move on to our second
item of business this evening. And this
is title 18 promoting building
investment code amendments, building
stepbacks, multif family amenity space
requirements in central Isiqua.
Uh that's where we're going to begin.
Kristen Leon, our planning manager, will
be presenting this evening. So Kristen,
when you are ready, please go ahead. I
got it right.
>> We had a little joke. We had a little
joke about that.
All right.
There we go.
Yes. Good evening. Kristen Lisen,
planning manager, and we are here to
kick off our first of our work plan for
promoting building investments in
Isiqua.
Um, these are the first two. We are
talking about um outdoor amenity space
requirements and stepback requirements
tonight.
So just rolling right into it.
Stepbacks. They are intended to remove a
canyon effect of taller buildings and
create a more pedestrianfriendly
environment is the whole purpose.
But there are some issues. The stepbacks
can be costly.
They can also result they can result in
higher construction costs and they can
also reduce the amount of buildable
space therefore reduce the amount of
revenue that developers may get from
these projects.
So, you know, these pros and cons pretty
much I just outlined the pros and cons,
but um they add sunlight, they improve
the pedestrian experience, they allow
for gradual increase when you're next to
lower density residential neighborhoods.
They, you know, allow for um you don't
have a 50story building next to a
25story building. And they help perceive
reduce the perceived scale of taller
buildings. And the cons, I've mentioned
these, you reduce overall square
footage. Um, one of the one that wasn't
mentioned is that the penetrations
from moisture from rain um on the
building envelope that they can create
moisture problems. So, you know, where
the building where the different floors
intersect, there's something there,
water can get in and that can cause a
problem
and be very expensive to fix. We have
several pol we have some policies in
place. These are from the central isqua
plan that support stepbacks in this kind
of architecture. And it says promote to
promote pedestrianoriented development
and to encourage the pedestrian scale
and architectural interest through a
variety of building heights and forms.
That's what they're intended to do.
We also have regulations in place. And
I'm just going to put it out there right
now. These are confusing. They're in
several different sections. Um, and
they're a little they're a little
complicated, but we have several
different options here. So we have that
you in most of these you have to have a
if you're if you do stepbacks it has to
be a minimum of 5t deep and a maximum of
20 ft deep. Right? If you're in a
building that is taller than five four
floors your your step back must stop
must start above the sixth floor. But if
you want to it can start above the third
floor. And if you have fewer than six
floors um the first two floors at least
have to be up against the street.
So then you move on um to central Isiqua
and step well I guess we're still there
stepbacks they must incorporate
terraces and usable outdoor spaces and
if you have few four or fewer floors you
cannot have more than two stepbacks
you guys following so far okay then if
you're going to choose to do the
northwest contemporary style so since in
central Isiqua there are different
architectural styles that you can choose
and one of those is Northwest
Contemporary and it requires stepbacks
and it has a list of things. You must be
compliant with all of the following
things and one in those includes that if
you are taller than five stories
that step back floors above the fifth
floor must be back a minimum they have
the minimum 5T and the maximum 20 feet.
Um you are non-compliant. If you are
four floors or less and you have two
stepbacks, you're non-compliant. You
can't do that.
So I those are those are our
regulations. Um other city regulations
are a little simpler. Um both doesn't
have required stepbacks. Uh Bellingham
you have to have a 15 foot deep start uh
step back starting above the fourth
floor measured at the back of the
rideway. So the back of the sidewalk not
where the building is.
So then it may not be as deep. In
Edmonds, it's 5T deep starting at 26
feet. When adjacent to lowdensity
residential being that whole thing about
you want to provide more daylight and
smaller scale with the lower density
residential houses in Kirkland, they
have a bunch of different ones, but
downtown Kirkland is probably the most
consistent comparable to what we are
planning here in central Isiqua. So,
they have a couple of options. uh 10
feet deep from the ground floor. So, the
first floor along two facades
um starting above the second story or a
5-ft minimum with an average of 10 ft
deep um from the street facade starting
above the third story.
It is
I'm sorry. Can you
And then are they both along they're
saying for Kirkland it has to be along
two sides of the building for both of
them
>> only for the first option. For the
second option it can be just along the
street facade.
>> Got it. Thank you.
>> Okay. And then on Mercer Island I had to
draw a picture because it's confusing.
It's at a 45 degree angle starting at 25
ft all the way all the way up to the
very top. So every floor is going to
step back there. And then in Redmond
it's 20. It only applies in Redmond. if
you can't do underground parking and
then you can do it and it's 20 feet deep
um with no required depth or I'm sorry
20 ft deep but no requirement at which
floor you start. Okay.
So just samples from other cities and
there is no no one that is alike unless
they're just not required. So yes
actually
chair voice there's
>> last page and we'll open it up. Yeah.
Okay, go for it. Commissioner,
>> is there any data on Ballard who went
through something where they, you know,
had had to change pretty quickly in
terms of density? Um, and there may be
some learnings in Ballard. I know these
are all um other parts of town, but um
if you go through Ballard, I can't
remember whether they have stepbacks or
not, but I know they have a lot of
sixstory buildings all over the place
now. And that could be another
>> Well, we happen to have a Ballard
resident. Do you do you know if there's
do you know if there's a requirement?
>> Okay.
>> Okay. We can look and see. Okay.
So our recommendations are right now is
that any building that is four four
stories or higher must have a step back
and facades only on facades budding
abuing public rights of way which would
be sidewalks streets or um non-motorized
circulation so multif family or
multi-use trails. We would require
stepbacks where construction changes
from concrete to wood.
uh only require one step back and remove
requirements for stepbacks that face
natural context areas
and then there are a lot of
considerations here. So do you have any
questions before we go into those?
>> Commissioner
um can you explain the rationale behind
a maximum of 20 foot setback?
No. Um,
>> straightforward answer
I guess there really doesn't need to be
a maximum. Most cities do have them.
There doesn't need to be. If a if a
developer wants to go that far back. We
have um actually Trail Head, the
development that's coming in, they're
putting their one of their open amenity
space requirements on their second floor
on top of the second story. So huge open
space there. So no
Yeah. Okay.
>> Any other questions before we start
getting into it?
>> Maybe you guys could feel free to ask
questions once we get into it, too. But
vice ch
would be a good time to ask you about
the natural context areas part. So, um,
what what specifically where did that
requirement come from? Basically
>> that came from our 2016 moratorum when
the city council asked for architectural
standards and our consultant quite
frankly thought this would be a good
idea. Um but we do do want to protect
you want to highlight when you're
building an urban environment or you
know mid-density urban environment out
of something that's been suburban and
people are more used to parks and green
spaces. You do want to highlight those
that are still here. So it it kind of
highlights that. But um to some of the
questions that you may have asked
before, we do have so we have three
state shoreline jurisdictions in the
city. Sam Lake Seamish, Isiqua Creek,
and North Fork of Isiqua Creek. So
anything that is along any of those
within 200 feet, anything built within
200 feet of those, you can't exceed more
than 35 feet. That's your maximum
height. So you're already you're already
required to keep it there for that. Um
we also have you know other mitigation
requirements things like that that are
in place. We have critical areas
requirements. Um there are certain
distances. So there's automatically
150 foot buffer plus another 15t set
back there for any building that's going
to go in and that we can't that doesn't
change. There are no deviations to that
or variances for that. So taking away
that step back, there's so much space
adjacent to right there anyway and the
height is required to be so low within
the shoreline jurisdiction. It doesn't
really make sense to require anything
additional.
>> Uh yeah, do you mind going back a slide
so I can My question is you mentioned
walking trails as non-motorized
circulation facilities. Would parks also
be included in that? something like
Confluence Park. Okay, great.
>> Yeah, on the map that I sent you all,
there are natural areas which include
parks and then there are natural context
areas. So, there's the green natural
area and then the context areas are in
purple. This would apply to both of
them.
>> Any questions?
>> All right, Kristen's questions.
>> Oh, I I see I saw mouththing of where's
the map? Um, it was at the link that I
sent you this afternoon for this this
code section.
I can
it's not in the PowerPoint. It was in
the code section that I sent today in a
response to where are the natural areas.
>> Okay.
So considerations uh first of all do you
want to eliminate multiple stepbacks
>> not allow them?
>> Do we do we just want to do this one by
one?
>> Yes that's that was okay. Yeah.
>> Um
>> yeah so as everybody knows our planning
policy commission is full of people from
diverse backgrounds and different uh
walks of life. But tonight I get to pick
on Commissioner Oler and ask him to put
on his architect and developer hat. So
just remember we all bring something to
bear here, but I know this is uh Eric's
field of work. So uh we'll leave that
there, but go ahead. Commissioner Crass,
>> did you want to speak too?
>> Did you want
>> No, that's okay.
I guess more like there's a why would we
have rules to eliminate if a if and a
developer may not want to do this but if
they they want to do multiple stepbacks
because it makes those units very
desirable and why would we have that
limitation to
>> so we're not really not allowing them to
do it we're not requiring them to do it
>> says eliminate multiple
>> yes right it is worded that way it is
worded that way yes
>> eliminate the requirement I'm just
trying to figure out what the
>> so let's Just cross that one out.
>> Okay, I'm done now.
>> All right.
>> Okay, moving on.
>> I've been asked to opine. You
>> sure? Please.
>> Yes. Call that by name. I
>> I mean, I guess if if you've got a
30story building,
um you can and you only have a a five-
foot setback at the second floor, you're
still going to have a canyon effect. So
I think to the extent that that multiple
stepbacks might be useful for taller
buildings
and I'm not sure that that is ever
applicable in this aqua but um
>> Merc island one that you saw they like
to have
>> yeah they look nice and certain they do.
I mean I I I think having read some of
the responses from uh developers I think
there there is some valid concern about
loss of square footage. um you know,
waterproofing issues, although I I would
push back on that a little bit and say
if it's designed properly, it won't do
that. Um but um
I I think it's it's probably fine in my
opinion to eliminate the requirement for
multiple setbacks
um given the scale of of buildings in
Isiqua. Uh, but if we ever got to the
point where we were, you know, like
Belleview and downtown, I think it might
be useful.
>> Uh, number two, do you how how do you
feel about eliminating stepbacks along
natural context areas?
>> Commissioner Grass,
>> you mean eliminate the requirement or
not letting them do it?
>> It's the It's eliminating the
requirement. Wow.
>> Because right now there's the
requirement.
>> I think Kristen summed it up pretty
well. If they can't build above 35 ft,
that might be a burden far too high for
them.
>> Commissioner Dair,
>> fair enough. Commissioner,
>> just one further comment on that. Um,
natural context areas are beautiful and
u so there may be um from a marketing
perspective an advantage to having
balconies that overlook that natural
context area. And so developers could
very well want to include some element
of stepbacks.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Vice chair Patterson.
>> Yeah. I think uh one of the reasons that
this particular one kind of came to my
mind was um you know I I guess if you
remove that requirement I'm just
imagining like sitting in a park across
from a development with like a square
flat you know building staring back at
me. Um, and so there was a little bit of
like when it there's there's two factors
to it, right? There's like the design
preference of like what do you want that
to look like, which is what I just
referenced, and then there's more of the
like ecological standpoint of like does
this true? Is there some scientific or,
you know, reasoning that we put this in
place in the first place? So, I think,
you know, from the design preference, I
think a lot of what has been discussed
makes sense of like the pros and the
cons. like maybe in this case it makes
more sense to not have that requirement
because of the you know the cost of of
doing that. Um but you did kind of
highlight a lot of the reason like the
stream and the height which makes sense
but I think if we can just to put a
final dot on that uh just understand
from the 2016 mortorium thing like why
they made that requirement in the first
place just to kind of make sure that
we're not undoing something that we said
was important at some point. Um, then I
just feel really good about it. Right
now I feel great about it, but I want to
feel really great about it.
>> Okay,
>> Commissioner Matthews.
>> Um, just carrying off of what the vice
chair just said, is it possible? I mean,
I don't think that we should have step
backs either because it's not that high.
It doesn't really make sense. But I, as
far as what he said about a big block
looking at you, I totally get that. is
maybe we look at um requiring a
different material change or subdued
color so it's not like the Alice
apartment on Confluence Park so we're
looking at it you know it's distracting
me but you know something to that effect
where maybe the color palette or
something is on a
>> on the back is
>> and we do that
>> oh you do that already
>> we do we require modulation
>> it's like every 30 feet or something
there has to be some sort of
set back in the building not set back
but set back in the or change in
materials. We have both horizontal and
vertical modulation
of either materials or actual
architectural changes in the building.
>> Thanks.
>> Yeah, I remember I think we talked about
those like two years ago, but ultimately
it's so we don't get those big Soviet
style buildings that are just flat
>> and I think like you said it's like
every 30 feet there's got to be some
type of jump. So that would be that
still would be true for this.
>> Yes, it would.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. And I'll just pick up off Ice
Chair Patterson. I mean, I think that's
where, you know, probably I'll be for
both parts of these conversations. I
just want to be careful, too, because
again, a lot of work. I mean, I I won't
name the infamous apartment that
triggered the moratorium as all we all
know what it was, but
>> a lot of thought went into all these
when we did this.
>> Everybody, stakeholders had the
opportunity to come. They did. And the
only thing I'll say is,
you know, it just kind of seems like
they really were pushing for clarity at
the time. it was more about clarity, you
know, user-friendly code. It just kind
of seems like the goalpost is moving now
with some of the developers. Okay, now
we don't really like this anymore
either. And that's the part that
concerns me because again, all the
stakeholders, we had believe two or
three people send in letters I think and
again this isn't to pick on anybody, but
you know, one of them mentioned the
economy. I I don't think that's a reason
to to haul, you know, strip our code. I
mean, there's always up times and down
times, and usually they come back
stronger than ever. So, um, I'm I'm
definitely want to be user friendly as
far as the city. I want people to be
able to develop and build here
aesthetically pleasing buildings. Um, I
just, like I said, a little cautious
because a lot of time and consideration
went into these. And again, I just kind
of feels like Charlie Brown. Every
single time this comes up, you know,
somebody pulls a football and, you know,
it's a different set of asks than what
originally was here about two years ago.
So my concern,
>> thank you.
Number three,
do you want to provide flexibility in
the location of stepbacks either above?
So right now we're saying
we want it to be where the material
changes, but not every building is going
to be a podium style building. You're
going to have, you know, some that are
just wood and they're not going to be a
change in material. So, do you want to
require it at a certain point like by
the third floor or do you want to allow
them to decide where it's going to go?
>> Uh, Commissioner Matthews,
>> I was just thinking, sorry, I did wave
my finger, but um I was actually
thinking of what you said earlier about
the feeling of a valley or a canyon,
even if you have a step back at four or
five stories and maybe a lower setback
would be better. Okay.
Okay.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Matthews,
Commissioner Krauss.
>> And also, would you maybe this is too
complicated, does it matter where in the
city also because you may have a
different point of view if if the
streets are narrower or tighter that you
want to do it at like floor after floor
two where in other areas if the if it
may make sense to you allow it to do be
a higher. So, I'm not sure if that gets
too complicated. on the environment or
where it is in the city. So right now
we're focused solely on
excuse me solely on regulations that are
in central Isiqua but in central Isiqua
you have the urban core which is the
regional growth center you know Costco
target that whole area the rally area
and then you have uh mixeduse central
Isiqua which includes sort of the former
Microsoft buildings the FedEx building
coming down that way and then you have
mixeduse residential which is closer to
where I believe you you are located and
those are slightly smaller streets with
slightly smaller buildings, but Veil is
there, Atlas is there.
Um, the new towns on Seventh Town Homes
just went there. So, it's changing.
>> I guess I'm just trying to think of like
the width of if you have a two
>> a two-lane road or or two lane plus
>> parking lane road, it has a different
feel of
>> what a canyon would be. And if it's a
wider one to begin with, I think it
gives you more latitude of where you put
it. If it's a narrower one, maybe you
want it a little bit lower. That's the
only thing. I'm not sure how you put
that in code. I'm just trying to think
aesthetically.
Um,
>> and most of our streets in urban core
and mixed use central Isiqua are what
are going to be called core streets. And
they will have at least two
two drive lanes,
parking on each side, and bike lanes. So
they're a little bit wider in mixeduse
residential. Not all streets are
required to be core streets. So some of
those may be a little narrower.
>> Any other further comment on uh this?
>> A good thought. And yeah, worth the
discussion.
>> Commissioner.
>> Yeah, I just want to say I also agree
with maybe having the stepbacks on a
slightly lower floor as suggested so
that we kind of avoid the canyon effect
because I can I've definitely seen that
in real life. just we already live in a
gloomy state. We don't need to make our
streets glooier.
>> Good argument. Um is there like a middle
ground where maybe if they change the
materials then they can decide what
floor but if they don't have a change in
materials then it is a standard. I I
like I said the whole idea of the code
is to give them policy that they can
clearly see and follow. I don't I don't
know if we allow developers to decide
where they do stepbacks. That that seems
kind of crazy.
Uh, Commissioner Gr.
>> So, just when do you have to can you
build a a wood story if you're five five
stories? I'm just trying to think of if
you build a five story, you don't have
any change, right?
>> Probably not. I'm going to defer to
Commissioner Allner though. Um, but
probably not.
>> I'm not sure where because you may still
tie it to change of materials. You may
have a fairly tall building with no
change of materials and then
>> it's usually like three over. It depends
on the materials that are used. I think
it's usually if you're going to use wood
and concrete, it's usually like
>> three over two.
>> Could you build a fivetory wood only
building?
>> Right. But four four fivetory wood
building is
>> Yeah. And you can build them and there
are, you know, mass timber buildings now
that are 15 stories high. Um
there are obviously some fire code
issues related to that, but uh they they
tend to be very beefy structures. So
they will they will not burn like a a
stick frame building would.
>> But then along Yeah. Along those lines,
you could have a five or more story
concrete building. So if they're not
changing materials. Yeah,
>> that's a good point.
>> Yeah.
And yeah, there are some very tall
buildings around here that are all
concrete. So that is that is an option.
If there's a material change, they
change where you know, you know, if it's
a podium style, they change at the
material change. And if there's no
podium style, then they have to change
by the second or third floor.
>> Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense.
>> Oh, but I'm saying I'm sorry, just to
say just to clarify what I said, it's
like you could have like five stories
and then the fifth the sixth story is
wood. So five story is concrete. So it
could kind of nullify like if they
wanted to push it. Yeah. So if we do
wind change of material that means your
step back could be theoretically they
could really high.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> So
what I'm hearing is we want to keep it
low.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
>> Second or third floor we want to keep it
low.
>> Yeah. It it's like I said it's a great
conversation because these were well
thought out at the time and and again to
change them dramatically. I just you
know you're tossing away a lot of work
that went into these. So, got to be a
good reason for it. So, appreciate it.
Hopefully, all this different vagueness
is coming together for something you can
put together.
>> It is.
>> Okay. Good.
>> That's why you sit over there.
>> Okay. Oh, Commissioner, sorry. Uh, yes,
Commissioner Miller Win.
>> Yes. Um, I just took a peek at the uh
the central Isiqua plan and I just I'm
trying to wrap my mind around this
concept, but I do want to ask a question
about the developer height bonuses that
are tied to stepbacks. So, I'm trying to
understand.
>> So, devel uh development bonus is not
tied to stepbacks. Development bonus is
if they want to go over the base height.
Yes.
>> So, or if they want to go over the base
F.
So it's not necessarily a step back. So
it's convoluted, but if you want to it's
I shouldn't say convoluted, it's a
little confusing. Um but if so, say the
base height is 60 ft and you want to go
up to 85 ft, right? We you are required
for 20% of onethird of your overage, you
have to require affordable housing on
site if that development is residential.
For the other two/irds, you can either
choose to pay of 20% of the other
two/irds. You can either pay fee and loo
for that. It's based on square footage
that your overages. You can do on-site
affordable housing. You can do it some
other place or you can uh yeah, the fee
and loo either goes toward city council
decides if it goes toward parks or open
space or to affordable housing.
So, is it a loss of um square footage to
gain height?
>> No. No,
>> it's actually somebody put it a very
interesting way today. Uh the more
height you get, that's more free land
you're getting. That's more development
you get. So, you buy this one square
piece of flat land and the higher you
get to go. That's more free land right
there.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. If I may, it's it's all about
density, right?
So, it's it's really like if they if
they're willing to do the affordable
housing, they can continue to build
upwards in order to get density in their
residential
uh multifamilies. So, we're allowing
less space, they get more or they can
build up,
>> but they have to in return give us to
Kristen's point affordable housing or a
fee and L.
>> Yeah. So, it's we'll give you this, you
can go higher, that's great, but we want
this, right?
>> That's what that is. But it doesn't have
anything to do with steps.
>> Nothing to do with stepbacks.
>> Step backs.
>> Thank you for the clarification.
Understood.
>> All right. Next question. And I think
we've already answered it. Um, well, do
we want to require a certain depth for
the stepbacks? It seems that we don't
want to require a maximum.
Um, but do you want to require a
minimum?
>> Commissioner D. Yeah, I think we
definitely want to have some kind of
minimum because if you want to think if
this is going to be community outdoor
space, I don't know y'all have ever been
on a narrow balcony. If you you can make
them unusable by having them too narrow.
>> So I I would think five feet is on the
narrow side for sure. Okay.
>> Just visualizing it. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Fivet would basically be like
planters I would assume, Eric. that type
of
>> you can get beastro chairs out there but
not much more.
>> Right. Okay.
>> So, you want it to be usable space.
>> Yeah. I mean, if we're counting this
towards their community space, you
you're saying it should be a terrace
space and it should be community space.
Well, then it should be usable for the
people who live there. I mean, if you
can't get a little barbecue or something
out there, what's the point? You're not
going to use it. Okay.
All right. Any preferred depth?
>> You can ask whatever you like,
Commissioner Grass.
>> I guess anything I like. Okay.
>> Context.
>> Um, so just because you have a minimum,
I don't think that means people are
going to only build to the minimum. They
may say, "Oh,
>> from a design standpoint, six feet is
better than five feet." Um, we're just
trying to have some level of,
you know, don't don't go less than this.
>> Correct.
>> But, you know, the market and, you know,
developers are going to say what's best,
I think, for their environment. And
maybe they're building an 8 foot depth
because that's um, so I'm not sure where
five came from. It doesn't seem like an
unreasonable thing, especially if it's
not livable space, but it's just from a
design standpoint to to kind of break
things up. Um, I can't remember from the
other cities.
Is is five kind of a standard or is that
something that we came up with?
>> Five was the minimum with the other
cities.
>> Okay. So, that's a but it doesn't mean
they're only building to five. That's my
point. So,
>> no. I mean, I guess I would ask um
Commissioner Oler, but to me, if they're
already making the break, it's more
about losing square footage in those
floors. So, they're probably going to
hug a little bit closer to five. They're
probably not going to go 30 on their own
free will because they're going to be
losing value. But it doesn't mean they
would just go 25. I mean, they're
already making the break. It's not going
to cost them much more money to go a
couple more feet. It's more about losing
the livable area on the floor, I would
assume.
>> I think that's true. And I and I think
the other factor is if they wanted to
consider that as usable open space then
they may want to go more than five feet.
Um so I think they're giving them a
minimum of five feet I think is that's
the I mean I wouldn't go smaller than
that.
>> Okay. Um but they they certainly
developer might want to go further than
that to to to
have a greater uh coverage of the of the
property um by having some of the
outdoor space elevated,
>> right? Which is part of our next
conversation which is will be we'll be
talking about outdoor communal space and
stuff. And so again, if it goes to that
number,
>> you're right. the the builders are
going, I'm already doing the step back,
so it makes sense if I'm trying to build
communal space. Let's do it here where I
already have to make the break.
>> I'll assume
Commissioner Matthews.
>> Um I actually think on your I think 5T
is pretty small and I think if you tell
them it's 5T, most people are going to
do 5T because if you looked at the
developer comments, they were already
saying they'd want to do less than half.
they want to do 30% balconies rather
than 50, you know. So, I'm basically
talking about another thing. So, they're
not going to go and do more unless they
know that like you're on Mercer Island
and you're going to get a huge amount of
rent compared to Isiqua,
I'm guessing. I don't know. But, you
know, so I think that maybe in between,
maybe seven and a half. Is that a weird
number? But yeah, eight, but it's um
five just seems pretty small.
you can't really use it. I mean, if you
go through Belltown or if you go through
Ballad, they have really tiny like five
foot balconies and they're not really
usable. You don't see them being used
that often just because they are small.
>> Commissioner Grass,
>> I think we also are combining two
different things. We have stepbacks,
which is the building just has a shape,
and then we have balconies. And do we
have code that if you have a balcony, it
needs to be a certain amount of size?
Because you could solve this. You can
say the stepbacks are five or less. But
if you're using it as a balcony, if
there's already code on balconies that
need to be at least 6 feet or whatever,
that kind of solves that problem if
you're using it for that.
>> Right now, private outdoor amenity
space, if you're going to do a balcony,
it has to be 48 square feet. So whether
that's 4 by 12 or 6 by8 is up to you,
but it's a minimum of 48 square feet.
>> So it's not a depth, it's just overall.
Okay, that didn't solve it. Sorry.
>> Try.
>> No. And I think you're right though.
It's it's two kind of similar but
different conversations because the next
one's going to be about, you know,
solidifying whether or not you get rid
of that or you combine it. That I think
is where the 50 to 30% number comes.
It's not necessarily the step back. All
I'm trying to say is that if a builder
sees it as beneficial to put the
communal space there, you know, again,
and I do agree. I do think that their
big concern is going to be, you know,
maximizing, you know, their livability.
But if they already have these other
standards saying you have to have this
much livable or communal space or
private space, they might see that as an
opportunity to build it in their part of
their design. So again, I think there's
similar conversations. Tell me if I'm
wrong, but they're different.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
I'm okay with five myself.
>> I I'm If I can speak, please.
>> Yeah. I weren't we just looking though
that the stepbacks in isqua right now in
the current code they do have to be
either terrace or community space right
they can be or they have to be I'm kind
of curious yeah
>> um that's that's an open space
conversation but you can you are
required right now
>> in our code to have 48 square ft of
private space
>> plus an additional 100 square ft per
unit common space which yes could be on
a rooftop. It could be in a plaza. It
can but some kind of outdoor space.
>> But right now, are stepbacks required to
be accessible as a terrace? Because I
swear I just saw that.
>> Yeah, they are in one place. They are.
>> Yeah,
>> I think it's next to maybe the next
natural context areas.
>> That's might be where I saw it.
>> I think that's right.
>> Okay. So just so they are going to be
utilized as I mean cuz if you're forced
to include a a step back then of course
you're going to include it as part of
your common space because you're
required to it's required to be
right I mean in the current standards
>> if I understand it correctly the 48 is
that's that's non-negotiable the 100
square feet is like it goes into a bank
where you know the whole community
whether I think to Kristen's point it
goes to it could be a plaza it could be
an outdoor or wraparound where the step
back happens like a terrace where
everybody can use but every unit gets
their own 48 square ft of outdoor
livable space.
>> Correct.
>> Um and then like I said that other 100
square ft can go into the property bank
and how the how the community or the not
the community how the developer chooses
to build that. So if there's 20 units
and you have 100, you know, that's 2,000
square feet. Where they're how what they
do or how they configure that is up to
the developer, but that 100 square feet
goes into the bank. The 48 is clearly
that is the individual units outdoor
area.
>> Yeah.
>> So I that's not quite what I'm getting
at here,
>> right? But our code currently requires
in central Isiqua
um
in this one6002 or 8602 masking and
building articulation that step backs
must incorporate terraces and outdoor
usable space.
>> Yes, that's what I was referring to.
>> So we do currently require that. But
it's still a minimum of 5T and a maximum
of 20 currently.
>> Yeah. So I'm just Yes.
So I'm saying yeah if it is going to be
part of their community space as
required then we should also think of it
as a community space is just what I'm
trying to say.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Do you want to require I I'm adding more
questions. Let's just make this maybe
longer. Do you want do you want to
require that stepbacks are used as open
space?
>> Uh no. I think like I said then you
might actually get into their
feasibility.
>> Yeah. Please, Commissioner Boler.
>> Oh, sorry. Sorry. No, that's okay. We'll
go around.
>> Um, you know, if you're just doing a
step back, you can do that with a
membrane roof that's not walkable. You
don't need railings, so it's much less
expensive. Plus, you don't have an an
exterior door to get access to it. So, I
mean, I I think it's an important
question that we're considering here
whether all of those stepbacks have to
be accessible and usable.
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> I was uh thinking on the same line if if
it's usable. So, so there Sorry, I'm
trying to get my thoughts together. I'm
thinking of like the apartments, the
Atlas apartments or where you may not
have a lot of area on a block to put in
enough outdoor space and you decide to
use that terrace or the step back as a
terrace as an outdoor space. Could that
if they decide to do that, turn that to
open space, could they the requirement
be greater like 10 ft at least minimum
if that's considered your outdoor space?
Sorry. Sorry, one one second.
If
>> does that make sense? Um
>> where I'm going? Okay.
>> I think so. But if they're if they if
they choose to make that an amenity
space, that counts toward their outdoor
space.
>> Yes. Was that the question? Did I miss
it?
>> Actually, if they decide to do that,
then maybe the step back is greater. So
five feet is like you're just walking on
your own in that area, but if it becomes
part of your outdoor space, then the
setback should be deeper like 10 feet.
Yes.
>> Okay, I see what you're saying. Okay.
>> All right.
>> It seems pretty reasonable. Uh,
Commissioner Er,
>> just uh um based on my own experience
renting an apartment in downtown Seattle
on the 28th floor, we I I think our
balcony was maybe 8 ft wide by
3 and 1/2 to 4t deep. It was barely
usable, but you could get two chairs out
there. You you could be outside and we
used it. Um, so I I'm not sure that, you
know, five feet is too small for an
outdoor space to be usable.
>> It'd be nice if it were bigger, but in
some cases.
>> Okay.
>> I I uh, anyone else like to go?
Commissioner D,
>> I kind of support the idea of making it
so that they have the option of it not
being outdoor space if they want to save
money into in order to encourage, you
know, them doing it, right? And
>> that way they can always do their
outdoor space somewhere else as long as
they are meeting the minimums for their
outdoor space. So I think where we're
going if it's if it's
not going to be amenity space it could
be 5T but if it is going to be amenity
space then it has to be I don't know
it's something to talk through. I mean,
we it it's this I'm not there's not an
answer right now, but
>> No, that's okay.
>> Like you said, it's I think it's just
it's percolating different ideas, but I
I I think I understand where the two of
you are going and I agree. Like you
said, if it's a personal private
balcony, I'm thinking of mine. It's 4
feet. I mean, it's plenty to have a
chair and a small Barbie, but yeah,
maybe if it go if you're actually trying
to get this to go into the communal
space, then yeah, maybe okay, now we're
talking about multiple people using it.
Five feet. I mean it's you know shoulder
to shoulder that's two people.
>> Do you mean communal space or just mean
usable space? I think we're now we're
>> communal.
>> Communal. Okay.
>> Yes. Not a balcony.
>> Got
>> like this is a place you'd have an
apartment meeting, right? That kind of
place. All the girls are going to go
sunbathe.
>> But it but to but I think to I mean it
still gives the developers some wiggle
room. They can decide whether or not
okay this doesn't really fit our design
or or what have you. So, gives them some
still some options.
>> So, we will we'll look more into that
one. I have two more quick questions.
>> Are you getting what you need? That's my
question.
>> No, but we're going to figure it out.
Okay.
>> Um, no. We got we got lots of
information to work with.
>> Okay.
>> Uh, should the stepback be on all sides
or should it just be on the street
frontage?
>> So, if you're on a corner, then you're
going to have it on two sides
automatically because you've got two
street frontages. Or if you if you're in
the middle of the block, you've got it
on one street frontage or should it be
on all sides
>> or Yeah, definitely. I'll go ask
Commissioner Craft.
>> It just go I mean, the purpose of this
was to not create canyons. So then by
definition, then it makes sense where
there's streets and so
>> I you know, I think you answered your
own question on that one, but it's like
>> well it our code currently doesn't say
>> otherwise you're like building pyramids.
Yeah.
>> Um but yeah, I think it's
>> it's I think it's the intent of the
discussion is is for where there's
people and if there's if you back up to
an alley or something like that that's
not that.
>> Okay.
>> Is that I So my view is where there's
streets or the other way we would, you
know, have walkways and all of that.
>> I I have one last question. If it's only
going to be on the street frontage, does
it need to continue 100% across that
building that that street facade, or
could it maybe occupy 75% of that street
facade?
>> Yeah. I think you showed a picture, one
of those pictures of the more modern
building where clearly it wasn't doing
that. It was broken up.
>> Mhm.
>> I mean, I I think aesthetically that
looks fine, but like I said, I kind of
want to phone my friend right now and
ask Commissioner Olen. But I I I think I
mean that sounds like that would be that
to have it on all all sides that seems
like that would that would probably be
pretty burdensome on a developer.
>> Yeah, I would I would think so. Um I
mean I think you know there's aesthetics
and there's economics and they don't
always agree with each other. Um I I
think if you if you look at many of the
developments where there there are
stepbacks on streets, they frequently do
not have them. Um where they're facing
an alley or, you know, they're buted up
against another building.
>> Yeah. I think for me it's just like I
said, I just don't want to strip all
the, you know, the the intent that we
built in this, but at the same time, we
want it to be user friendly. I I don't
want to scare people when people think
of our zip codes like you know.
>> So where did we land on that one? If
it's on the street frontage all the way
across or a percentage of that 75
>> percentage right I mean it gives them
more design options and flexibility
>> commissioner there.
>> Yeah. Along those lines though, um, are
there requirements based on baked into
I'm just thinking, is it possible to get
a really long building so then you'd
have kind of a long section that is that
25% or do we have maximum lengths built
in already?
>> Well, we already have a built in you
you've got like 30 feet before you have
to break it up again. And so we do
already have some some things broken in
there um or uh put put in place so that
you break up the building.
>> I'm just thinking of the canyon effect
though. So if you were to have really
high frontage that's that would be my
main concern if you have like really big
I don't want to say the blue names
building but that is a very long big
building and even you know 25% of it is
still enough to cast a shadow is what
I'm saying. So that's kind of what my
concern is
>> is Yeah.
>> So I hear one for all the way across.
>> Does the staff have an opinion on it?
>> No. Waiting to hear from you.
>> Okay.
>> That's funny. The blue building which we
do not speak of. It's like Voldemort.
>> Well, we did we did just get a second
staff opinion over. beat. We did get
another up for like eight years around
here.
>> Did the other city I'm curious. You had
that one slide that had all the other
cities rules of stepbacks. How do they
handle that same question?
>> Um,
>> is it the entire length or is it
>> I haven't seen. So, Kirkland's is
interesting because it has to be an
average of 10 feet which means they can
have 5T here and then 25 ft here. So,
that's that's a big difference in their
stepbacks. Um, Minnie was just saying
that there are some you could have it
where you don't have to step back on the
corners, but you do have to step back on
the rest of the building.
That's an option.
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> I think it's I have no problem with them
having a, you know, like a a minimum
75%. But I don't think that the 25% and
you may have already said this should be
junked in one area. Maybe you have to
break it up break it up a little bit.
>> Okay. Yeah, like you said, on the
corners have it
>> have no break or step back and in the
middle have it
>> okay?
>> Yeah, that was going to be my
suggestion. Maybe we could have like a
certain foot length of it. You know, you
can't exceed more than this long without
some kind of step back.
>> Okay. So, I'm I mean I could say this at
the end, but and we're going to move on
to open space, but I think I'm just
letting you know we'll come back next
time with draft code, actual code, but
there will probably still be some
options in there. And these are what we
talked about. This is what it would look
like. So, but but we've narrowed it down
so we have things to work with. Okay.
You ready to move on to open space?
>> Everybody get to say their piece.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
Okay. So, this one's obvious. It just it
provides open spaces for residents,
particularly for those who can't who are
for some reason unable to go outside of
the facility, maybe senior housing, that
kind of thing. And it creates a sense of
place for for residents who are there.
Um, however, in comparison to other
communities, ours are rather excessive.
Our requirements are excessive. So, as I
mentioned, um, well, we'll get to that
in a second, but they're a little
excessive. Um but they do foster
community. They attract tenants. They
command higher rents. Um they reduce
turnover because of that sense of place
and they boost property values. So there
are lots of bonuses to open space.
There we go. But there can be too much
of a good thing and too much required
amenity space can actually stop a
project. I spoke with a developer
recently who was looking at a site and
the amount of required open space the
site isn't quite an acre. The amount of
open space that would be required is
slightly over half an acre. So that that
stops that development right there.
So we again we have policies that direct
us. These are actually from this is from
the comprehensive plan not central plan.
citywide, but to encourage a
well-distributed system of shop,
services, and recreation that serves
with the needs of residential
neighborhoods and workplaces.
And our codes, as I mentioned before, we
have if you have 20, we're only looking
at these are only going to apply to
those that have 22 units or more because
that's really what you're going to get
in central Isiqua. So, we require that
each each unit currently has 48 square
ft of space attached to it that they
have an additional 100 square ft of
common space to be somewhere in the
building that everybody can use. And for
these you also we also require an
additional 400 square ft of space just
not per unit just 400 ft of space.
You can get deviations but if you're
going to do that you must be consistent
um with the intent of this. You can't
constitate it can't be a privilege to
you know reduce it. You can't you can't
have an appreciable adverse impact on
the environment or health or safety. So
you have to have something and then you
have to um if you are going to have any
kind of impacts those have to be
mitigated elsewhere.
And I left this out of your slide. What
are the deviations? Left this out of the
discussion before. Um, one is that you
can request a deviation in the size for
the um,
size requirements. If you put all of the
I'm going to say this wrong, all of the
required community space for multiple
buildings into one larger community
space. You can do that.
So, if you have two buildings, you don't
have to split it up. You can have it all
in one place. Um, you can reduce
the number. This one you all did not too
long ago and that we were currently
required that you have all of them have
it, but you can reduce it that only 50%
of the units have the private private
space, but you still have to have a
total of 148 square feet for every unit.
So, the rest of that, whatever you don't
do, that 50% has to go into common
space. And then the last one is for the
conversion of multif family units that
can be uh reduced. They don't have they
just have to still provide 148 square
feet somewhere on site. You don't have
to do any outdoor because we can't
require them to do physical changes to
the building. So
okay. Um so Belleview currently they
require 800 square feet of unpaved space
plus private 50 square feet per unit
beyond 10 units. So if you do 11 units,
50 additional square feet per unit.
Um
in both and Canyon Park, similar to
Central Quad, 20 it's they require 20%
of common space
um based on the net building floor area.
No private amenity spaces are required.
Redmond, they do a common and private. I
need to look a little further into this,
but it's 100 square feet per unit that
they have to do and a maximum of 20% of
the project site,
which something like that may have
prevented in this other situation. Um,
and then Snomish County, their comment
and private space is 150 square feet per
unit, which is very much like Isiqua.
It's a little bit over.
So recommendations are right now that we
require setbacks.
Shoot.
Wow. Okay.
Okay. I don't know what happened. Um, do
you have your staff report with you?
>> Okay, we can wing it. Plenty cable.
>> Uh, my staff report.
Oh, as far as just the questions you're
going to ask us. Yes. Let me see.
>> Of course you can.
I'm taking my responses.
>> And I apologize. I looked at this right
before the meeting and didn't even
notice it. Oh my goodness. Okay. So our
recommendations are
um rather than to have deviations
um just require
just 100 square ft of common outdoor
space plus 48 square ft of open space or
100 square feet per unit plus an
additional 48
48 square ft per unit for any units that
do not have private open space or I'm
going to need to keep this or 100 square
feet per unit plus 30% of all units have
to have this square feet of open space.
So essentially we're just taking that
30% out of the deviations and moving it
up to the top. Okay. Um to allow
flexibility in the amount of open space
requirements for all commercial and
multif family buildings converting to
affordable residential housing which is
what we already do and require private
open space for only 30% of the units
instead of 50%.
thoughts.
Have
>> you you want to just take a question by
question?
>> Uh, sure. Well, those were the
recommendations.
>> Okay. Those are the recommendations.
Okay.
>> Um, let's do question by question. How
about that? Yes. Sure. Okay. That way I
get to go to the next slide. Okay. Um,
yeah, Kristen. Wow.
Okay, I'm keeping this. So, those are
actually the recommendations that are up
on the screen. Look at that. Okay.
Considerations. Um,
do you want to amend the code to add
options instead of having applicants
request deviations? Just, you know what,
here are your options. You can do one of
these three things. Sort of the way that
I don't know if I think it was in the
packet itself, the way Redmond does it.
Um, they had different ways of
calculating it and we could do that.
>> Commissioner Grass. Um, thanks for the
options. So, if I look at 1B, do I read
this as they could do 148 beat per unit
just that it says both common and
private together? It's kind of And then
they could have some with no balconies,
but it could all be in common. Is that
one of the choices?
>> 30%.
we would have 30%
>> or is it that's an or I if I just chose
one B.
>> It'd be and if I
>> So here's the other question. I'll ask a
different way.
>> I'm confused.
>> So some of them some of the other cities
do not break out private and common.
>> They just say let's say 150 ft per unit.
You got to put it somewhere.
>> Is that what B is? One B is.
>> Yes.
>> So they don't have to have any private.
They could do it all public. If if I if
I was a developer and I chose 1B,
>> correct?
>> Okay, that's
>> And then A is just the current how it's
written. Correct.
>> Current how it's written. Yes.
>> Right. So A is just currently how it's
written. B is to
>> John's point
>> and B gives them the flexibility of
where they want to put it, which is
which is not. And they may decide to put
more of it in.
Here's the other question. If is there
is there a D if they if they want to
just do much bigger balconies on all of
these and have a smaller common or is
that not something that we would want to
have as one of the choices?
If they say they wanted to do 100 ft per
unit
as it as a balcony but then have a
smaller common one. Are we trying to do
we care more about having a a bigger
common area or do we want to have
if someone has a priv a bigger private
area we don't have to worry about as
much common area?
>> I can't really speak for developers. I
don't know.
>> No. What do we want as a city? Not
developers probably would never do this
because they would probably it's more
expensive that way. But I'm just curious
if if we have a preference one way or
the other
>> thinking I mean common space is
important.
>> Okay.
>> Because that's where you go and you meet
your community and you meet the people
who are there and it provides play areas
for kids and it provides that kind of
thing. Private doesn't do that. You you
know and if it's a if it's an apartment
or a condominium that has children in it
and you don't have the common spaces
that leaves them 100 square feet to play
on their backyard.
>> Okay. Then I wouldn't do then I wouldn't
do a D. So then you answer my question.
Okay.
>> Uh, Commissioner Matthews,
>> I actually like the option where um only
30% of the units have balconies because
I could tell you in my condo about 30%
of the people actually use that space at
all. So, to me, it makes sense to not
that not all of them have it. Um, I
guess the problem comes down to someone
got lucky and rented a balcony and then
they never used it and the next guy
wished he had his balcony. But I think
it makes sense not to have balconies on
every single unit. It just especially in
central Isiqua and have a bigger outdoor
space.
>> Commissioner De.
>> So I'm I'm all for options. I My issue
is looking at A, B, and C. I feel like B
kind of covers everything in A and C.
So, it makes A and C redundant if you
have B, unless I'm misunderstanding it
because if you have 30% of units minimum
have 48 square ft of open space. Oh, I
guess. So, that way is saying that you
don't have to have the additional 48 ft.
Okay. So, that's what I'm getting.
That's different there. And so then it's
like if you don't want any balconies at
all, then you have to add the additional
square footage.
>> But then nobody's going to pick a but
that's fine.
>> Yeah. No, absolutely. Like I said, code
language is funny, huh? These guys live
in it. So I don't feel bad if it takes a
moment. U I definitely want to make sure
everybody gets to speak. Uh Commissioner
Miller Irwin, Vice Chair Patterson,
>> anything. You don't have to. I just
Okay. No, just it it does appear that um
C is most comprehensive in that it's
appears to be the best of both worlds.
It gives you the uh square footage or
private open space and then also the
private space as far as the balconies
are concerned. So C seems reasonable to
me. Okay,
>> great point.
I I first thing is do I guess one of the
questions was would we prefer options
over deviations, right? That was kind of
the crux of that perfect. So,
>> um I know in the past this commission
has never liked deviations because they
feel like people lean on those whether
options are more appropriate here and
you know giving them a a a menu of
things they can choose from. Everybody
agree with that that options are better
than deviations.
Okay, I'm getting a lot of headshakes.
So, it looks like you got some
>> Sure. Vice Chair Patterson.
>> My only comment on that. It takes me
back to the Pioneer Project thing is we
at one point talked about options. We're
like everyone's going to pick the one of
the like one of the three options and so
we're like why not just go with that? So
that's one thing I might consider for
this is like is there one that the
develop like if you talk to a few
developers are going to be like we're
going to pick B every time or whether
like right
>> does it make sense if we're trying to
simplify things that we just if we're
going to give them the option do we just
make that the thing I don't know it's
just
>> uh Commissioner
>> I'm not sure I understand uh option C.
So in option C uh you have to haveund
100 square ft per unit common space and
30% of the units have to have the
private space. That seems like the least
ownorous from a development standpoint
because the other 70% of units don't
have to contribute 48 square feet to the
common area.
>> You are correct.
>> So why wouldn't a developer just pick
that one?
They may just say, "I want you."
>> Yeah, that's true. That's true. But then
they
>> Yeah,
>> that's a good point.
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> sorry I keep talking, but um the So for
option C, I'm at the same point where
it's like everyone's going to go for
option C. So why have options? Why don't
you just tell them what the minimum
criteria is?
>> Oh.
Well, I was going to continue. So,
basically, you would b you say that that
48% cannot be on the ground floor. It
has to be in one of the higher units.
>> Well, it it can be a patio on the ground
floor. Just
>> No, no, no. I bet. Well, cuz they'll say
like, hey, that patio is really now if
it's on the ground floor, it's pretty
much part of the common space.
Everybody's going to be, you know,
>> does
>> none of it has a fence.
>> Sorry. condos were just built close to
me and that first floor they have patios
and then each one of those patios is
fenced individually.
>> Oh
>> yeah. Okay.
>> Well, I was going to say it. Why not
just make it a minimum criteria instead
of options and then if they want to do
more they could do more? I mean that's
it seems like that'd be the simplest
approach.
>> Yeah, great point.
>> Yeah, cuz um building on what Sandra is
saying. Yeah, I can see somebody saying,
"Oh, on the ground floor, we're going to
fence off some areas." And now that's
technically private and we can kind of
take away from our overall space
requirements that way because we'll have
30% of this is right smaller. So, I
would maybe want to specify that that
private space would either have to be
above ground floor or maybe we do just
go with a minimum that way.
Any
other comments? Commissioner Grass,
>> I guess like I asked earlier, do we is
there a preference that we have common
areas? The answer was yes. So now I have
a different question somewhat related is
do we care if they build private or not?
Because if we have no preference that
they build private, then B should be an
option. If we feel like at least 30% of
every development should have private,
then C. I mean, so it comes back down to
what's the intent of the city. Do we
want um to require private? Because you
can envision some areas that B would be
more attractive based on the what the
property is. um and they could do maybe
a better job with common versus trying
to convolute if it's a small unit have
48 square ft maybe make.
>> So the policy in the comprehensive plan
is to have common spaces for people to
enjoy and create a sense of community.
So that implies common spaces rather
than private spaces. We did have an
internal conversation about this a very
brief one and there was disagreement. So
um but the but the policy is for more
common spaces.
>> Okay, I get that. But because the
current is we are requiring private
>> correct.
>> So that's why I was asking a pointed
question of are we changing our point of
view and being more flexible of not
having private and the with with the
benefit of being more common.
>> So I'm going to ask Minnie to come up
here because Minnie was involved in the
conversation during the title 18 update
and that's when we changed this. So she
will have a little history as to
background.
>> Yes. So going back to pre-title 18
updates um in central it was just a 48
square ft. You you picked whether it was
common or it was private. Uh during the
community conversations um the
administration's proposal at the time
was 100 square feet. you pick common or
um uh balconies. Um through the
community conversations um there was a
desire to actually have private open
spaces. So then what became as planning
and policy commission's recommendation
that council adopted was 100 square feet
per unit plus 48 square ft for each unit
to have its own private open space. We
came back last year because we got
feedback saying every unit balcony is
not an aesthetic. Nobody's building
balcony on every unit. We need more
flexibility. And so we brought it back
with a 50% had to have balconies. We
kept the standard the same 100 square ft
and 48 square ft per private space, but
you could bundle that 48 ft into your
common space and just do for 50%. I
think the ask now that you heard
comments from the developers is reduce
that 50% to 30%. So the proposal last
year or a year before that after title
18 where we reduced it to 50% was a
deviation pathway. So you still had your
standard but you could ask for a
deviation to reduce to only do it for
half the units. So I think that that led
to this conversation
um about so the two two things one is
public common versus private the ask I
think is to just only have a third of
the units or 30% of the units have
mandatory private open space. So if if
there's consensus on that then we can
set that aside. The other one is what's
the common open space standard which is
100 right now. And then you have this
third bucket of if the 70% of the units
are not going to have private open space
then should that get bundled in with the
common open space standard that that's
how I think it's
>> I was asking a different question.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean are we
loosening our or changing our point of
view about mandatory any private space
because if you look at B is an option.
>> I think administration's recommendation
is at least 30% of the units.
>> So then B shouldn't be an option.
>> Yeah. I'm just I'm trying to come up
with do we want in some of the cities
that do they combine it? So that was my
question is is the point of view that we
want to require private. I know we
wanted to to focus on on common. I
totally get that. Um but but do we want
to require everything? And
>> so it's it's you know I think that's
where the community felt that there
needed to be for a livability standpoint
of folks living in the community. not so
much from the other standpoint that it's
nice to have a space that's your own uh
as in a multif family unit and so how
many of those units uh you know if
people want to pay less rent and not
have a balcony they have that option but
some units have that option if you
desire to have your own space that's
where we've landed on this 30 and I
think that's supported by the builder
roundt forum that we had and you
received one comment saying they they
appreciate going from 50 to 30%
Commissioner,
>> so casting back in time when we came up
with the 50% did the builders not have
input then? So
>> well it went through a public process
but we didn't hear from anybody.
>> Okay. So the 30 what? Yeah. Charlie
Brown is just but and then I if I could
just add on to that for speaking for
private space and this is just a
question to encourage discussion and
thought is there an advantage for people
for example who might be housebound or
have disabilities to have their own
private space available for outdoor
time? I mean maybe they could go down to
the courtyard but it might be beneficial
that some people just have that option
available to them.
Commissioner Miller, did you want to
speak?
>> Um, I agree 100% with Commissioner Dare.
Um, multifamily housing has different
demographics within it. So, you may have
people very well that are willing to pay
more money for a either balcony or um
patio space. you may have people that
are basically um housebound or simply
don't want to partake in the larger
communal space that you're going to have
probably a lot more children than not.
So I could see in terms of overall
marketability that C would be very um
attractive to developers because of all
of the variability that you can build in
marketing wise.
Commissioner Eer.
Um I think all of those um points are
valid and and I I think giving
flexibility is is a a good thing because
for example
the the property could be on a very busy
road um could be noisy um and people may
not want balconies and the developer may
say you know rather than have balconies
on the outside I'd rather have fewer of
them on on an internal
courtyard and have an open space with
plantings there which you know creates a
respit rather than have it all outward
facing.
>> Yeah, I think the language in the code
doesn't specifically say balconies, it
says private outdoor space. So that
could mean you know in your common open
space you get designated plot to do your
gardening or whatever, right? So you get
your own that that is a method. We've
toured some of the units in Seattle that
they do that for senior housing and
those kind of things. So um so there is
some flexibility. It doesn't say
balconies only. I think that but most
people, you know, assume it's a balcony
and that
>> Yeah,
>> it's an interesting way to interpret it
for sure.
>> Yeah, of course. Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Yeah, all this great discussion has
finally allowed me to form some thoughts
and opinions on this. Um, one thing I
will say is, uh, in my day job, we think
a lot about in the IT world, what's nice
to have and what do we need to have? And
I think when I think about that, you
know, outside space is a is a need to
have. But whether that's a balcony or
communal space or a local park, I think
that's that's the need to have part. The
balcony itself, I think, is nice to
have. And I think that making it a
requirement for all units or even 50% of
the units It's still a nice to have and
it's probably something that allows the
developer to charge more rent for that
unit because it's it's an additional,
you know, private amenity, I guess. Uh
it's like having a jacuzzi bathtub,
right? It's like that that's an
additional thing that you get to have
access to. So, you might be paying a
premium for it. Um so, in that case,
like I'm kind of on board with moving to
30% of the the private space, private
open space. I also the more I think
about it the whole reason this is coming
up is because developers are saying we
can't develop with some of these
requirements whether it be the balcon
the balconies or the open space and so
that makes me not want to go the route
of allocating that non-private space to
communal space because then you're just
transferring the cost from the private
open space to the to the communal open
space and we might be stuck in the same
spot where they can't develop anything
because that communal space is growing
the square footage that they're trying
to develop. So, I think where I'm kind
of landing with is like if we're truly
trying to like create development, which
is what I understand the priority of
this initiative or these changes, is
that we should probably consider
uh going the direction of I guess it
would be
like I guess a you know one a with a
combination of lowering the units from
50 to 30 that require the private open
space. Um, and I think the reason why to
kind of re bring this all back is that
it helps the developers and that it
gives them um, they don't have to do
50%, you know, they have to do less
private open or private open space. They
don't have to do additional common
space. So, it lowers their cost overall.
The impact to the consumer, the
community member is less balconies,
right? which is I think we've kind of
discussed like it's a benefit to have it
but it's not necessarily a a need to
have it's a nice to have and they're
still able to access the existing the
common space that is required which I
mean if it's a a one-size courtyard and
you just make it bigger like I don't
think that's going to impact you know
the the usage as much um I I I would be
I don't know I
>> sure would be surprised that's option C
I think what you're talking about is
>> right right I I I think yeah that's
probably a little too much but so yeah I
don't know I I think this is a great
discussion though there's a lot of
considerations but I think at the end of
the day the issue is we're not getting
enough development and housing and you
know do we want to encourage that by
lowering some of these barriers or do we
want to continue this you know being
stuck here by trying to have these
requirements and I don't think that
we're losing much by making these
changes I think we're doing what it's
set out to do which is to increase
development in the central Isqua area
specifically. So, I'm kind of that
that's where I landed with all of this
great discussion that we've had um on
this topic.
>> Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson.
>> I'll just toss in my two cents. I don't
think necessarily having only 30% having
private open space is a bad thing. I
think honestly aesthetically to have
everybody have a balcony or something
similar would actually start looking
monolithic.
um it's not necessary. The market will
decide. You can see that almost on every
multif family. You know, there's pen
houses, there's things like this that,
you know, people pay more for what they
want and some not all units need it and
some some people to point earlier won't
even use it.
My question, and this is just a
legitimate question, just so what if you
were to take the 70% of units that
aren't doing the private open space,
could they contribute their 48 to an
additional, you know, put it like in a
bank, you know, then that would also so
then those 70 70% of units would now
have to contribute 148 ft. Does that
tank the project? Does that make it
unfeasible? That's my question. I'm not
saying I know it does or not, but that
would be my question is like a hybrid
for number C or for letter C is maybe
you get you bring down. So then they
because once they make an area that
relatively is inexpensive. It's the loss
of value from the square footage for
livability. The actual making of a
common area is not that's not driving up
the cost. It's they're losing the
ability to charge more for bigger units
and more units. So, I don't know if
there's a hybrid where C is like I said,
you you give them the 30%, so not every
unit has to have a balcony, but maybe
those 70% that don't get it goes in and
those 70% of units have to be at 148
square feet.
>> So, that's what our current deviation is
>> that. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. Could
have stopped me earlier, Kristen, but
thank you.
>> I want to interrupt.
>> But, um I honestly take another thing a
little bit differently. Isqua's always
hit our housing targets. I don't know
why we're in a rush to develop anything
and I don't mean to be rude about that.
I mean, I understand there's a push uh
to get more development, but it will
come. I mean, Isqua is very um you know,
it's a very coveted area. People want to
live here. It's only becoming more and
more expensive. So, just because we're
not competing with both in terms of
development does not bother me. Maybe it
bothers everybody else. It does not
bother me at all. I don't want to see us
rush through it. is all of these things
we're doing are going to be here for a
generation if not more and I'd rather do
it properly and right and make it fit
with the community than just be the
first one to be like yeah we got five
new starts like who cares
always hit their targets and if this
time we're a little bit slower than
others
doesn't bother me I'd rather do it right
but that go out there
commissioner
Um I I come at this u from the
perspective of someone very interested
in in developing more affordable
housing. And um while these are
obviously going to these questions are
going to have an impact on the
affordability of development. Um there
are many other factors and and some of
them much more fundamental like the cost
of land is a huge component and whether
you have 50% of units with an outdoor uh
private space or 30% that's not going to
have the same kind of impact that um you
know an expedited uh permitting process
would have or or other ways in which to
encourage development. So I I guess I
would suggest we're be a little cautious
about how far we we push this particular
lever to favor developers because there
are so many many other things that we
could and should be doing. Um so anyway,
that's just my perspective.
>> No, I appreciate it. It brings up uh
Kristen's photo of the island and
everything that was below the surface
which again are to your point that's
those are much more impactful than some
of the things that we're tweaking and
like you said if we go one direction
completely those aren't the big levers
below the surface ones we cannot see.
>> Commissioner Darren did you want to
speak?
>> Yeah to those along those lines I'm all
for creating options and all of that
making it more flexible and easier. I do
want to point out though when I was
looking over the open space requirements
for Kirkland and Redmond and things I
didn't if I I was just doing the math
quickly I didn't see that it was that
different than what we had or that much
more honorous. So it does make me think
in some of these cases like what Oler
said the difference is land cost right
here versus and not necessarily.
So, I like the idea of making things
simpler and easier for people coming in,
but at the same time, yeah, I don't
think we should throw the baby out with
the bathwater on all of these. And yeah,
the baby in this case being open space,
>> that's interesting you said that cuz I I
thought so, too. After looking at that,
they didn't seem a whole lot different.
Belleview and what was the other one?
>> Redmond.
>> Redmond and Kirkland. I'm just I'm going
to go home and run them numbers cuz I'll
be curious to see how much because I was
just looking at I was like, "Okay, so we
need about 2,200 square ft of open space
for a 22 unit building. So, if we get
down to the nitty-gritty with the
different ones, how many how much square
footage of open space would they need?"
And I did have the question on the
breakdown of the net area footage that
I'll probably be emailing you later,
Kristen, because I know you love my
questions. Okay.
>> I'm sorry I missed part of that. the
>> Okay, there I did have I'm going to
probably be breaking down the math on
that just cuz I'm curious and I like
numbers.
>> Okay,
>> thank you.
>> Let's be honest. Woodenville gets all
that work because of the wine.
>> That's what it is.
>> Um are are you still getting everything
you need?
>> Well, you know, we have all these
questions, but I think the discussion
has covered them all. So, yeah. Yeah, I
was looking at them.
Um, thank you for this by the way.
>> Yeah, no problem.
>> The only one that we haven't talked
about is
do you want to add a maximum?
So, Belleview has their requirements,
but no more than 20 the max they're not
they don't have to go more than 20% of
the square net square footage of the
building.
Would you want to consider a maximum?
>> Commissioner Matthews.
>> So, I had a question about that. Uh, you
know, in central Isqua, most of the
blocks are pretty small. So, you
probably only want X percentage of the
actual land to be used for open space.
Otherwise, you're not going to get a
building around it. So were you thinking
does it make sense to do it by the
overall square footage of the building
or would or the plot of land so for open
space not for the private space?
>> We'd have to look at that. You know the
the land itself you have to calculate in
the parking spaces and the driveways and
the required landscape already. I think
sometimes it's simpler to do the
building but the building is where the
people are. So then you're basing it on
the number of people not the size of the
land. Plus, if you have critical areas
in there, you have to calculate those.
I I don't want to just make it easy, but
I think it is easier to figure it out if
you base it on the building. And sort of
that's that gives you sort of an
estimate of how many people are going to
be in there and be using the space more
than the site itself.
>> Yeah. I was just thinking if you had 22
units and say it's only a block big, so
you have a six floor. Okay. I'm not
doing maths in my head tonight, but if
you have a six-story building with 22
units or whatever it is and it's only a
block big and they're supposed to have
148 square feet for every, you know, for
22 units, that's a big chunk of land.
So, if you're only on a block, that
seems like you're not going to get that
space. You could eat up like half that
block for open space. So, I was just
wondering if it made sense to do it
based on the footprint,
>> right,
>> of the location. We have to look at that
one.
>> Any comments as far as requiring a
maximum?
>> Everybody just gone silent.
Uh,
what would be the big con of having a
maximum?
>> I mean, I don't see one myself. I mean,
You know, again, I I guess that not
being good stewards of you utilizing the
land properly, but again, that the kind
of
just the cost and everything, I don't
see I don't think that's going to come
up a whole lot.
I mean, what do other cities do? Let me
ask you that.
>> I have only seen one one other city that
has a maximum.
>> That doesn't mean there are more, but
sure, in my research, that's all I've
seen.
>> But our but our east side cities only
one. Yeah.
>> And what was their maximum? 20%.
>> Yes.
>> Please.
>> If I'm understanding this, it's not it's
not um
it's it's a a way of of providing a a
ceiling to just how much open space
needs to be on a piece of property. Um,
and I
to chair's comment, I I don't see a
downside to that. Um, because obviously
developers are going to want to build
more units and less open space.
I
>> think it's a reasonable approach.
>> Yeah. I mean it I I think again the
builder is going to want to maximize it
but if you ever did get that oddball you
know you wouldn't want to be a bad
steward of the land and build you know a
very small building on a very large
property and take up amazing uh real
estate in central Isuziqua. So I don't
really see a downside to it. And if
you're selling 20%
you know they're going to build a
football field out for their community.
Um
>> I don't know. Well, I mean, again, I I
maybe it's something we could put in and
if it becomes problematic, it could
always be readressed.
>> I I think I'm seeing lots of nods.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. Great.
>> Are you ready for me to move on?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> So, you already know the timeline
because Kate's given it to you. So,
So, we will bring this back on April
23rd for review and it'll be interesting
because I know that there are developers
watching or who will watch this and we
will be meeting with the developers at
5:30 that day. Um, actually no, we
won't. We'll be meeting with some
developers will be there and making
presentations um with the economic
vitality commission. Um, so we have that
and so you'll see these again on the
23rd with actual code drafted but still
with options in there. May 24th we come
back for the public hearing and then
June 2nd to planning development
environment committee and then June 29th
to council for action. That's all I have
and I don't think there are any more
questions
just in case.
>> Right. Going once. Yeah. All right.
Well, thank you. Um, it looks like
Kristen's going to stay up there as we
move on out of regular business for
reports,
>> city council updates.
>> We did have our second roundt building
with developers to talk about these and
that was held on April 1st and there
were several. The first time we met it
was more town home, middle housing
developers and this time it was
larger developers. There's one who's
doing Trail Head, one who's looking at
another market right here. Um, so one
who did Veil, which is over on uh 7th.
So, some some larger developers and we
got some it was an interesting
conversation that was that was good. Um,
let's see any other council updates. any
>> you know for um some of the things we've
taken to them are um not that stuff that
comes to you the fee update
um but one of the things we are going to
take to the planning uh development and
environment committee um is the list of
17 that council has said we you know as
our work plan uh for the next two years
um we want to create some goals and
outcomes for those seven so that helps
provide some guidance to the boards and
commissions as you work through them. So
that meeting currently scheduled for uh
May 19th. Um and then we were thinking
as you all debate uh the four meteor
topics, you know, there's some that we
that are more in the housekeeping kind
kind of category or simpler topics. Uh
and then some that are more policy
driven things that we would do a
midcheck-in with uh planning,
development, environment committee after
you all have discussed and debated that
a little bit um to kind of not surprise
them towards the end but also give you
some some of the feedback. You know what
else do you probably the question as at
as the midpoint check would be is there
anything you want planning and policy
commission to consider before finalizing
the recommendation. So for that we were
thinking the stepbacks that you're
talking about today, the open uh amenity
spaces and then we have um development
density and um inclusionary all the
affordable housing pieces um and tied to
that is um request for floor area ratio
and mixeduse residential. So it doesn't
quite work. We have a maximum height and
F don't quite work well together. So
those are the four that we're thinking
uh after you have had a chance to
discuss that we'll check in with them
and bring it back before you finalize
your comments. So that's in the works in
terms of sharing the schedule for all
all the 17 with them as well. Um other
than that council's busy with a lot of
stuff. We have new council members and
you know other things that are current
but names will kick up after you all
finish your deliberations.
>> Excellent. Thank you, Minnie.
Okay. Uh
any other updates?
>> No, I we did um I say no and then I say
yes. Um we but I do want to talk to you
quickly about the meeting on the 23rd.
Um, Chair Voice wanted to remind
everyone it is at 5:30 here. I'm hoping
you can make it. Can you raise your hand
if you cannot make it? Just let or you
can email me. You can email me if you
can't make it. But we do need to have a
quorum. Uh, if we don't have a quorum,
even though there's no action, we can't
hold that meeting. So, that's important.
Um,
there will be some developers there
making a presentation. We will also make
presentations regarding vision and state
targets and things like that. It's it's
an educational piece for everyone. It's
not for feedback. It's education and
questions
>> for both the environmental or uh
economic development commission and you
all. So hopefully it helps inform
decisions on both sides.
>> Yeah. No, I think we all definitely want
to hear from the stakeholders and
clearly developers are part of our
community that help build our community
out. So definitely want to hear from
them and you know thank you to I won't
say their names but the the few people
that reached out on behalf of of
developers that provided us you know
some feedback. I mean it's all important
and they're definitely a big
stakeholder. So I don't I I don't hope
it doesn't come across as hostile just
more more than anything just you know
trying to make want to make sure we get
it right. That's all.
>> Um
okay other businesses announcements?
Anything else?
>> This time I really don't have any
Okay, so 5:30. I got a feeling like
people are going to be sneaking in like
at 5:45 and 5:50 going, "Oh my god." So
maybe on the packet and big bold
letters, we can put 5:30 meeting. Um,
that would probably help be helpful.
>> Anything from the commission? Anything
as far as good the good of the order?
All right. Well, thank you everybody.
Anything from staff before we say sign
off? All right. Well, thank you
everybody. Thank you Kate and thank you
Minnie. Thank you Kristen. Thank you
Amanda. Uh thank you tech and thank you
all. Have a good evening.